Journal of Personality 84:4, August 2016
The Little Six Personality
Dimensions From Early Childhood
to Early Adulthood: Mean-Level Age
and Gender Differences in Parents’
Reports
C 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
V
DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12168
Christopher J. Soto
Colby College
Abstract
The present research pursues three major goals. First, we develop scales to measure the Little Six youth personality
dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness to Experience, and Activity. Second, we
examine mean-level age and gender differences in the Little Six from early childhood into early adulthood. Third, we examine
the development of more specific nuance traits. We analyze parent reports, made using the common-language California Child
Q-Set (CCQ), for a cross-sectional sample of 16,000 target children ranging from 3 to 20 years old. We construct CCQ–Little
Six scales that reliably measure each Little Six dimension. Using these scales, we find (a) curvilinear, U-shaped age trends for
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness, with declines followed by subsequent inclines; (b) monotonic, negative age
trends for Extraversion and Activity; (c) higher levels of Conscientiousness and Agreeableness among girls than boys, as well
as higher levels of Activity among boys than girls; and (d) gender-specific age trends for Neuroticism, with girls scoring higher
than boys by mid-adolescence. Finally, we find that several nuance traits show distinctive developmental trends that differ
from their superordinate Little Six dimension. These results highlight childhood and adolescence as key periods of personality
development.
Several key patterns have emerged in the study of life span personality development: Children, adolescents, and adults can all
be described in terms of personality traits—characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving (Caspi, Roberts, &
Shiner, 2005). Personality traits do not become fixed at any particular age; they remain capable of change throughout the life
span (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). Most adults become more
agreeable, conscientious, and emotionally stable as they age, a
phenomenon dubbed the maturity principle (Roberts, Walton, &
Viechtbauer, 2006; Roberts & Wood, 2006). There are modest
mean-level gender differences in personality: In general, women
tend to be somewhat more extraverted, agreeable, conscientious,
and neurotic than men, although these differences vary across
cultures (e.g., De Bolle et al., 2015; Schmitt, Realo, Voracek, &
Allik, 2008).
These points of consensus constitute major advances in our
understanding of personality development, but they also raise
new questions. For example, much more is known about normative personality development in adulthood than childhood
(Caspi et al., 2005). How do youths’ personality traits typi-
cally develop? Does the adult trend toward greater psychosocial maturity extend backward into childhood and
adolescence? When and how do gender differences in personality first emerge? The present research addressed these questions by examining mean-level age and gender differences in
parent-reported personality traits across early childhood (which
we define as approximately ages 3–5), middle childhood (ages
6–9), late childhood (ages 10–12), early adolescence (ages
13–14), late adolescence (ages 15–17), and into early adulthood (ages 18–20).
The author thanks Grace DiBri and Ivan Yang for their assistance with this
research, and Oliver P. John for providing the complete principal
component loading matrix from John, Caspi, Robins, Moffitt, and
Stouthamer-Loeber (1994).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Christopher J. Soto, Colby College, Department of Psychology, 5550
Mayflower Hill, Waterville, ME 04901. Email: [email protected].
410
Temperament, Personality, and the
Little Six
Progress toward understanding personality development in
childhood and adolescence has been slowed by the distinction
historically drawn between child temperament and adult personality (Caspi et al., 2005). Temperament is often defined as
behavioral and affective traits that appear within the first few
years of life and have a strong biological basis (Goldsmith et al.,
1987). In contrast, personality has been thought to gradually
emerge over the course of childhood and adolescence, as temperamental dispositions become psychologically elaborated into
personality traits (Rothbart, 2007; Shiner & Caspi, 2003).
Reflecting this distinction, temperament and personality are typically measured using different instruments that assess different
sets of traits. Temperament models and measures most often
include versions of four trait dimensions: surgency/sociability
(vs. shyness/inhibition), negative emotionality, persistence/
effortful control (vs. impulsivity), and activity level (Buss &
Plomin, 1984; De Pauw & Mervielde, 2010; Rothbart, Ahadi,
Hershey, & Fisher, 2001; Thomas & Chess, 1977). In contrast,
personality is most commonly assessed in terms of the Big Five
trait dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience (Goldberg,
1990; John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008; McCrae & Costa, 1987).
A number of recent reviews have worked toward connecting
the temperament and personality literatures by highlighting conceptual and empirical overlaps between them (e.g., Caspi et al.,
2005; Clark & Watson, 2008; Shiner & DeYoung, 2013). For
example, the temperament traits of surgency/sociability, negative emotionality, and persistence/effortful control have clear
parallels with the personality traits of Extraversion, Neuroticism,
and Conscientiousness, respectively. Drawing on these links,
Shiner and DeYoung (2013) and Soto and John (2014) recently
proposed that basic individual differences in youths’ psychological characteristics may be best conceptualized in terms of six
broad trait dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness to Experience, and Activity.
This “Little Six” model represents a conceptual union of the
most prominent traits in the temperament and personality literatures. Preliminary empirical support for the model comes from a
study examining the joint structure of several temperament and
personality measures (De Pauw, Mervielde, & Van Leeuwen,
2009), as well as research examining the multidimensional
structure of the California Child Q-Set (CCQ; Block & Block,
1980), a broadband measure of youths’ personal characteristics
(John, Caspi, Robins, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1994;
Soto & John, 2014; Van Lieshout & Haselager, 1994). Each of
these studies identified a multidimensional structure that
included all of the Little Six as independent dimensions.
The Little Six model thus holds promise for both describing
youths’ traits and integrating the temperament and personality
literatures. However, further investigation of this model is
impeded by the lack of measures that independently assess each
Little Six dimension. Therefore, the present research’s first
Soto
major goal was to develop a method for assessing the Little Six
using the item pool of the common-language CCQ (Block &
Block, 1980; Caspi et al., 1992). Previous research has shown
that the CCQ can be used to measure youth versions of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and
Openness (John et al., 1994), and that Activity is largely independent of these dimensions in childhood (e.g., De Pauw et al.,
2009; Soto & John, 2014; Van Lieshout & Haselager, 1994).
We therefore expected that the CCQ would include enough content to reliably measure each Little Six personality dimension.1
Age and Gender Differences in the Little Six
Important biological, social, and psychological changes occur
throughout childhood and adolescence. Biologically, youths
change in terms of body size and shape, hormone levels, and
brain anatomy and chemistry (Keating, 2004; Marshall & Tanner, 1986). Socially, their relationships with parents and peers
evolve; romantic relationships emerge and become increasingly
important (Collins, 2003; Rice & Mulkeen, 1995). Psychologically, they gain new cognitive, emotional, and behavioral
capacities, and they work to develop coherent and differentiated
identities (Erikson, 1968; Harter, 2006; Inhelder & Piaget,
1958).
What pattern of personality development might these
changes produce? One possibility, which we will refer to as the
maturity hypothesis, is that the positive age trends in personality
development often observed during adulthood might extend
backward into childhood and adolescence. That is, youths may
become steadily more agreeable, more conscientious, and more
emotionally stable across childhood and adolescence. However,
other hypotheses are also plausible. One alternative, which we
term the disruption hypothesis, proposes that some of the biological, social, and psychological changes experienced during the
transition from childhood to adolescence may produce adjustment problems and might therefore be accompanied by temporary dips in psychosocial maturity.
One large cross-sectional study of youths’ self-reports provides some support for the disruption hypothesis (Soto, John,
Gosling, & Potter, 2011). Specifically, this study found curvilinear, U-shaped age trends for Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,
and Openness. These traits declined from late childhood into
early adolescence, and then inclined from late adolescence into
adulthood.2 This study also found declines in Extraversion and
Activity (measured using a subset of Extraversion items) from
late childhood into adolescence, followed by flat age trends
through adulthood. Additional support for the disruption
hypothesis comes from a recent longitudinal study spanning
from middle childhood into early adulthood (Van den Akker,
Deković, Asscher, & Prinzie, 2014), as well as a meta-analysis
of 14 cross-sectional and longitudinal studies that collectively
spanned late childhood and adolescence (Denissen, Van Aken,
Penke, & Wood, 2013). Like Soto et al. (2011), both studies
found U-shaped age trends for Conscientiousness and
Mean-Level Development of the Little Six
Openness, as well as a decline in Extraversion; Van den Akker
et al. (2014) also found a U-shaped trend for Agreeableness.
There are also reasons to suspect that the development of
some personality traits might differ by gender. In adulthood,
mean levels of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,
and Neuroticism tend to be somewhat higher among women
than men (De Bolle et al., 2015; Schmitt et al., 2008), but it is
not yet clear when these gender differences first emerge. Childhood and adolescence tend to be experienced differently by
boys versus girls (Dweck, 1986; Hill & Lynch, 1983), and these
differences may influence personality development. For example, Soto et al. (2011) found that, from late childhood into adolescence, mean levels of Neuroticism inclined among girls but
not boys, producing a substantial gender difference by late adolescence. Similarly, Van den Akker et al. (2014), as well as a
large cross-cultural study (De Bolle et al., 2015), found the
emergence of a gender difference in Neuroticism during
adolescence.
Although a growing number of studies have examined age
and gender differences in personality traits during late childhood
and adolescence, many fewer have tested for such differences
during early and middle childhood. The available evidence tentatively suggests that, across these earlier developmental periods, mean levels of Extraversion, Openness, and Activity may
decline, girls may already show higher levels of Agreeableness
and Conscientiousness than boys, and boys may already show
higher levels of Activity than girls (De Fruyt et al., 2006; Eaton,
1994; Eaton & Enns, 1986; Lamb, Chuang, Wessels, Broberg,
& Hwang, 2002; Prinzie & Deković, 2008; Slobodskaya &
Akhmetova, 2010; Van den Akker et al., 2014). However,
results have often been inconsistent across these studies, and
more evidence is clearly needed.
Therefore, the present research’s second major goal was to
examine age and gender differences in the Little Six year by
year from early childhood into early adulthood. We were particularly interested in (a) testing for positive (supporting the maturity hypothesis) or U-shaped (supporting the disruption
hypothesis) age trends in Conscientiousness, Agreeableness,
and Openness during the transition from childhood to adolescence; (b) testing for gender-specific age trends in Neuroticism
during these same years; and (c) exploring possible age and gender differences during early and middle childhood.
Looking Beneath the Little Six:
Developmental Trends in Nuance Traits
Personality traits can be conceptualized hierarchically, with
broader, higher-order traits subsuming narrower, lower-order
ones (Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2005). In the terminology
developed by Costa and McCrae (2010; McCrae, in press),
broad personality “domains,” such as Extraversion, each subsume a number of more specific “facet” traits, such as assertiveness and sociability. Each facet, in turn, subsumes “nuance”
traits that are narrow enough to be represented by individual
411
questionnaire items. Pairs of same-domain facet or nuance traits
are conceptually and empirically related to each other. However,
such traits can also be meaningfully distinguished, with each
facet and nuance capturing unique information (e.g., McCrae, in
press; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). Moreover, previous studies
have found that facet and nuance traits sometimes show distinctive age trends that differ from their superordinate domain (e.g.,
Lucas & Donnellan, 2009; Roberts et al., 2006; Soto & John,
2012; Soto et al., 2011; Terraciano, McCrae, Brant, & Costa,
2005). These adult findings suggest that lower-order traits may
also show distinctive developmental trends in childhood and
adolescence. However, few studies have investigated this possibility, and these studies have not converged on a particular pattern of findings (De Fruyt et al., 2006; McCrae et al., 2002;
Prinzie & Deković, 2008; Slobodskaya & Akhmetova, 2010).
Therefore, the present research’s third major goal was to
examine the mean-level development of more specific traits
within each broad Little Six dimension. We chose to pursue this
goal at the nuance level (using individual CCQ items) rather
than the facet level (using multiple-item facet scales) for three
reasons. First, there is not yet consensus regarding the most
important facet-level youth traits (cf. Costa & McCrae, 2010;
Halverson et al., 2003; Mervielde & De Fruyt, 2002). Second,
the lower-order structure of youth traits appears to shift with age
(Caspi et al., 2005; Soto & John, 2014). Third, the CCQ was
developed to minimize conceptual redundancy across items and
thereby promote analysis and interpretation of individual items
(e.g., Block & Block, 2006). Thus, item-level analysis of the
CCQ would allow us to investigate the development of nuance
traits using a highly sensitive, bottom-up approach. Specifically,
such analyses could identify individual items that show distinctive developmental trends—as well as clusters of items that
show trends similar to each other—without imposing a static
facet-level structure that may be inappropriate during some
developmental periods.
Overview of the Present Research
In sum, the present research was conducted to address three key
research questions. First, can the common-language CCQ be
used to measure the Little Six? Due to the breadth and depth of
the CCQ item pool, we expected that it would be possible to
construct a reliable scale for each Little Six dimension. Second,
how do mean levels of the Little Six differ by age and gender
across childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood? We tentatively expected to find (a) U-shaped age trends for Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness; (b) negative age trends
for Extraversion and Activity; (c) gender differences in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (with girls scoring higher than
boys), as well as Activity (with boys scoring higher than girls),
by middle childhood; and (d) gender-specific age trends for
Neuroticism, with mean levels inclining across adolescence
among girls but not boys. Third, do some nuance traits show
developmental trends distinct from their superordinate Little Six
412
domain? We broadly expected to find some distinctive trends,
but we did not have clear predictions regarding specific nuances.
We tested these hypotheses by analyzing parent reports for a
cross-sectional sample of 16,000 target children between the
ages of 3 and 20 years old.
METHOD
Participants and Procedure
Participants were the parents or guardians of 16,000 children,
adolescents, and young adults between the ages of 3 and 20
years old. This sample of target children was selected from an
initial set of 24,373 to balance for age and gender. Specifically,
the SAMPLE command in SPSS 21 was used to randomly select
a final sample including 500 males and 500 females in each of
16 age groups: each individual year of age from 3 to 17, plus a
combined 18–20-year-old group. In terms of ethnicity, 78% of
the target children were described as White/Caucasian, 4% as
Black/African American, 4% as Hispanic/Latino, 3% as Asian/
Asian American, 1% as Native American/American Indian, 8%
as mixed ethnicity, and 2% as another ethnicity. Approximately
83% resided in the United States, 7% in the United Kingdom or
Ireland, 6% in Canada, and 4% in Australia or New Zealand.
Most of the parents (89%) were mothers.3
Participants anonymously completed a questionnaire describing their child’s personality. This questionnaire was hosted on a
noncommercial Web site (personalitylab.org) that potential participants could find through search engines, links from other
Web sites, or word of mouth. After completing the questionnaire, participants received automatically generated feedback
about their child’s personality, as well as general information
about personality research.
Measures
Common-Language California Child Q-Set. Participants
completed a version of the common-language California Child
Q-Set (CCQ). The original CCQ (Block & Block, 1980) was
developed to allow researchers and clinicians to comprehensively rate youths’ personal characteristics. The commonlanguage CCQ (Caspi et al., 1992) revised many of the original
items using simpler, nontechnical language so that the measure
could be used with parents and other nonprofessional observers.
In the present research, we modified the common-language
CCQ in two ways. First, we replaced specific words or phrases
in 12 items so that they could be applied to adolescents and
young adults as well as children. Second, participants independently rated each item on a scale ranging from 1 (extremely
uncharacteristic) to 9 (extremely characteristic), rather than
sorting the items into a fixed Q-sort distribution (see Block &
Block, 1980). Prior to analysis, we controlled for individual differences in acquiescent responding—the tendency of a respondent to consistently agree or consistently disagree with items,
regardless of their content—by centering each participant’s set
Soto
of ratings around his or her mean score on an acquiescence index
that included 26 pairs of opposite items (see Soto & John,
2014).
Development of the CCQ–Little Six Scales. To develop
scales for measuring the Little Six, we used a joint rationalempirical approach that drew on previous research using the
CCQ. Specifically, we assigned each CCQ item to a Little Six
scale if it met two or more of the following criteria: (a) it was
rationally classified into the corresponding Big Five dimension
by John et al. (1994), (b) it loaded substantially on the corresponding principal component in the present sample (Soto &
John, 2014), (c) it loaded on the corresponding component in
John et al. (1994), and (d) it loaded on the corresponding component in Van Lieshout and Haselager (1994). We considered a
loading substantial if it was at least .40 in strength, or at least .50
in the case of Agreeableness (due to the abundance of Agreeableness content on the CCQ). These criteria thus assigned items
based on convergence between rational judgments of item content and previous empirical findings. One CCQ item (“76. Can
be trusted; is reliable and dependable”) met the assignment criteria for both Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, and one (“64.
Is calm and relaxed; easy-going”) met the criteria for both
Agreeableness and (low) Neuroticism. Based on these items’
content, we assigned them to the Conscientiousness and Neuroticism scales, respectively. The resulting CCQ–Little Six scales
included a total of 67 items, listed in the appendix.
Examination of Measurement Invariance. We conducted
a series of multiple-group confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs)
to test for scalar invariance of the CCQ–Little Six scales across
age and gender (i.e., equality of items’ factor loadings and intercepts; Meredith, 1993). Establishing such invariance would indicate that the CCQ–Little Six scales function similarly in
different groups, thereby allowing the straightforward interpretation of observed mean-level differences. Conversely, failure to
establish invariance would indicate differential item functioning
(i.e., one or more items’ measurement characteristics differing
across groups, relative to the rest of the scale; Reise, Widaman,
& Pugh, 1993). Such a result would highlight the importance of
examining item-level nuance traits alongside Little Six scale
scores.
For each CCQ–Little Six scale, we conducted two pairs of
multiple-group CFAs using Mplus 7 (Muthen & Muthen,
2012). The first pair compared a model in which each item’s
loading and intercept were estimated separately for boys versus
girls to a model in which these parameters were constrained to
be equal across gender. Their results supported scalar invariance: From the freely estimated to the constrained model, fit statistics that prioritize parsimony by strongly penalizing model
complexity indicated increases in fit (e.g., increases in TLI of up
to .09; decreases in RMSEA of up to .03), whereas fit statistics
with little or no penalty for complexity indicated only trivial
decreases in fit (e.g., differences in CFI and SRMR of .01 or
less).
Mean-Level Development of the Little Six
413
Figure 1 Mean levels of the Little Six by age and gender.
The second pair of CFAs similarly compared a model in
which each item’s loading and intercept were estimated separately for each of the 16 age groups to a model in which these
parameters were constrained to be equal across age. Supporting
scalar invariance, from the freely estimated to the constrained
model, fit statistics that prioritize parsimony generally indicated
increases in fit (e.g., increases in TLI of up to .07; decreases in
RMSEA of up to .02). However, supporting differential item
functioning, other fit statistics suggested modest to substantial
decreases in fit (e.g., decreases in CFI of up to .14; increases in
SRMR of up to .08). Taken together, these results indicate that
mean-level gender differences in the CCQ–Little Six scales may
be interpreted straightforwardly, but that mean-level age differences should be interpreted cautiously and accompanied by
item-level analyses of nuance traits.4
Data Analysis
We examined mean-level age and gender differences in personality traits in three steps. First, we fit a regression model to identify the overall developmental trend for each dimension. These
models included the effects of gender (coded 1 5 female, –
1 5 male), age (centered at 10.5), age2, and age3, as well as
interaction terms (see Table 2). Second, to examine these trends
in greater detail, we plotted each Little Six dimension’s pattern
of means by gender and year of age (see Figure 1). Finally, we
conducted item-level analyses to examine whether any nuance
traits showed distinctive developmental trends. Specifically, we
correlated each CCQ–Little Six item’s set of 16 age-specific
means with the set of means computed from the rest of its scale.
A near-zero or negative correlation would indicate that a particular nuance’s developmental trend was distinct from the rest of its
Little Six dimension. We then plotted and visually inspected the
item-specific means to verify interpretation of these correlations.
Due to the large size of the present sample and the exploratory nature of some analyses, we used a conservative significance level of .005 for all hypothesis tests. To facilitate
interpretation of results, we scaled the Little Six dimensions and
item-level nuances as T-scores with a mean of 50 and standard
deviation of 10 while controlling for between-group variability
(cf. Soto et al., 2011). In terms of Cohen’s (1988) guidelines for
effect size, a group difference of 2 T-points indicates a small
effect, a difference of 5 T-points indicates a medium-sized
414
Soto
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Coefficients, and Correlations of the CCQ–Little Six Scales
Correlations
M
SD
a
Ext.
Agr.
Con.
Neu.
Ope.
Act.
9
22
10
15
6
5
0.42
0.53
0.23
–0.23
1.37
0.66
1.70
1.53
1.52
1.43
1.21
1.67
.83
.93
.86
.87
.63
.73
—
.09
.10
–.41
.13
.35
—
.63
–.32
.20
.16
—
–.45
.25
.33
—
–.14
–.42
—
.11
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
.89
.03
–.10
–.27
.04
.13
.05
.91
.34
–.11
.07
.05
.06
.36
.76
–.25
.21
.35
–.19
–.19
–.10
.91
–.03
–.18
.12
.19
–.04
–.02
.87
.04
.13
.10
–.05
–.25
.04
.84
Items
CCQ–Little Six Scales
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
Openness to Experience
Activity
Principal Components
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
Openness to Experience
Activity
Note. N 5 16,000. CCQ–Little Six scales are scored from within-person centered items. Principal components are extracted from a set of 94 personality-relevant
CCQ items and rotated using the varimax criterion (Soto & John, 2014). All correlations are statistically significant at p < .005. a 5 Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient; Ext. 5 Extraversion; Agr. 5 Agreeableness; Con. 5 Conscientiousness; Neu. 5 Neuroticism; Ope 5 Openness to Experience; Act. 5 Activity.
Table 2 Regression Coefficients Predicting the Little Six From Age and Gender
Conscientiousness
b (SE)
Intercept
Gender
Age
Gender 3 Age
Age2
Gender 3 Age2
Age3
Gender 3 Age3
48.9373
1.3281
–.1834
.1326
.0500
–.0124
.0012
–.0021
(.1190)*
(.1190)*
(.0435)*
(.0435)*
(.0042)*
(.0042)*
(.0011)
(.0011)
Agreeableness
b (SE)
49.9013
.7025
–.3759
.0733
.0046
–.0086
.0051
–.0017
(.1190)*
(.1190)*
(.0435)*
(.0435)
(.0042)
(.0042)
(.0011)*
(.0011)
Openness to Experience
b (SE)
49.4975
.1168
–.3335
.2115
.0236
.0115
.0028
–.0038
(.1191)*
(.1191)
(.0435)*
(.0435)*
(.0042)*
(.0042)
(.0011)
(.0011)*
Extraversion
b (SE)
49.0487
.2584
–1.0230
–.0076
.0448
.0015
.0021
.0006
(.1190)*
(.1190)
(.0435)*
(.0435)
(.0042)*
(.0042)
(.0011)
(.0011)
Activity
Neuroticism
b (SE)
49.5910
–.5143
–.7140
–.0318
.0192
–.0114
.0014
.0005
(.1191)*
(.1191)*
(.0435)*
(.0435)
(.0042)*
(.0042)
(.0011)
(.0011)
b (SE)
51.6464
–.1830
–.1121
.1317
–.0775
.0270
.0115
.0003
(.1191)*
(.1191)
(.0435)
(.0435)*
(.0042)*
(.0042)*
(.0011)*
(.0011)
Note. N 5 16,000. Gender is coded 1 5 female, –1 5 male. Age is measured in years and centered at 10.5. The CCQ–Little Six are scaled as T-scores (M 5 50,
SD 5 10).
*p < .005.
effect, and a difference of 8 T-points or greater indicates a large
effect. For pairwise comparisons with 500 observations per
group (e.g., comparing two different age groups within the same
gender, or comparing boys vs. girls within the same age group),
mean-level differences of 2 T-points or greater are statistically
significant at the .005 level. Note that all effects reported here
should be interpreted as cross-sectional differences rather than
longitudinal changes.
RESULTS
The CCQ–Little Six Scales
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics, alpha reliability coefficients, and intercorrelations for the CCQ–Little Six scales, as
well as these scales’ correlations with varimax-rotated principal
components derived from a set of 94 personality-relevant CCQ
items (Soto & John, 2014). Reliability coefficients were quite
high for the Agreeableness (22 items, a 5 .93), Neuroticism (15
items, a 5 .87), Conscientiousness (10 items, a 5 .86), and
Extraversion (nine items, a 5 .83) scales, and acceptable for the
shorter Activity (five items, a 5 .73) and Openness (six items,
a 5 .63) scales. Intercorrelations among the scales averaged .27
in strength, and most were weak or moderate. The most notable
exception to this pattern was the substantial intercorrelation
between Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (r 5 .63). We
suspect that this correlation reflects (a) the CCQ’s ample representation of obedience and responsibility content (two lowerorder traits related to both Agreeableness and Conscientiousness), (b) the general tendency of parents to describe children in
terms of a broad easy versus difficult dimension (De Pauw et al.,
2009; Tackett et al., 2012), and (c) the possibility that agreeable
Mean-Level Development of the Little Six
and conscientious behaviors may in fact covary more strongly in
childhood than in adulthood (Mervielde & De Fruyt, 2002;
Soto, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2008). We attempted to reduce
the correlation between these two scales through item deletion,
but we found that even much shorter and conceptually narrower
versions remained substantially intercorrelated. Based on this
finding, and the importance of maintaining appropriate breadth
of content when measuring broad constructs, we retained the
full Agreeableness and Conscientiousness scales reported in the
appendix.
As shown in the bottom half of Table 1, convergent correlations of the CCQ–Little Six scales with varimax-rotated principal components were uniformly strong: They averaged .86, and
all were at least .76. In contrast, the discriminant correlations
averaged only .14 in strength, and all were weaker than .40.
Taken together, the results reported in Table 1 indicate that the
CCQ can be used to reliably measure each Little Six dimension.
Age and Gender Differences in the Little Six
and Nuance Traits
Conscientiousness
Coefficients from analyses regressing Conscientiousness on age
and gender are presented in Table 2, and mean levels of Conscientiousness by age and gender are shown in Figure 1a. Overall
Conscientiousness showed a quadratic age trend (b 5 .0500,
p < .005), which was more pronounced among boys than girls,
as indicated by the significant Gender 3 Age2 interaction term
(b 5 –.0124, p < .005). Specifically, mean levels declined from
early to late childhood by 6 T-points among boys and 3 T-points
among girls and then inclined from early adolescence into early
adulthood by 4 T-points among boys and 2 T-points among
girls. Girls were more conscientious than boys at every age, with
this gender difference largest (approximately 4 T-points) during
early adolescence.
Analyses of nuance traits indicated that 8 of the 10 Conscientiousness items showed age trends similar to overall Conscientiousness. One exception was “99. Thinks about their actions
and behavior; uses their head before doing or saying something,” which showed a flat age trend from early to middle childhood and then the normative incline from early adolescence into
early adulthood. The second exception was “47. Has high standards for themself; needs to do very well in the things they do,”
which inclined from early to middle childhood by 2 T-points,
then showed the normative U-shaped trend. Taken together,
these results support the disruption hypothesis for most nuances
of Conscientiousness. They further indicate that girls tend to be
more conscientious than boys, especially during late childhood
and early adolescence.
Agreeableness. Regression coefficients for Agreeableness are
presented in Table 2, and mean levels are shown in Figure 1b.
415
Overall Agreeableness showed a cubic age trend (b 5 .0051,
p < .005). Mean levels were consistent across early and middle
childhood, declined by approximately 3 T-points from late
childhood through early adolescence, and then inclined by
approximately 2 T-points from late adolescence into early adulthood. Girls tended to be slightly more agreeable than boys, but
these gender differences were small (2 T-points or fewer) at
every age, and the age trend for Agreeableness was similar
among boys and girls.
Nuance-level analyses indicated that several Agreeableness
items showed age trends distinct from overall Agreeableness.
These distinctive items fell into three clusters. First, the items
“31. Is able to see how others feel; can put themself in another
person’s place,” “13R. Tries to see what and how much they can
get away with; usually pushes limits and tries to stretch rules,”
and “93R. Is bossy and likes to dominate other people” showed
monotonic age trends that indicated greater perspective taking,
less bossiness, and less limit pushing at older ages, with total
age differences of 2–7 T-points. Second, the items “11R. Tries
to blame other people for things they have done themself,”
“55R. Worries about not getting their share of material things,
food, or love; seems afraid they won’t get enough,” and “95R.
Lets little problems get to them and is easily upset. It doesn’t
take much to get them irritated or mad” showed roughly quadratic age trends. These trends indicated inclines (of 2–7 T-points)
in blaming others, worrying about fairness, and irritability from
early to late childhood and then declines (of 2–4 T-points) from
early adolescence into early adulthood. The final cluster
included “62. Is obedient and does what they are told,” “22R.
Tries to get others to do things by playing up to them; acts
charming in order to get their way,” “85R. Is aggressive. (For
example, picks fights or starts arguments),” and “90R. Is
stubborn.” Their age trends indicated inclines in obedience and
declines in manipulation, aggression, and stubbornness across
early and middle childhood (with totals of 2–5 T-points), followed by the normative U-shaped pattern from late childhood
into early adulthood. These results support the disruption
hypothesis for overall Agreeableness and indicate that girls tend
to be somewhat more agreeable than boys. However, they also
indicate that many nuances of Agreeableness show distinctive
developmental trends.
Openness to Experience. Regression coefficients for Openness are presented in Table 2, and mean levels are shown in Figure 1c. As indicated by the significant Gender 3 Age3
interaction term (b 5 –.0038, p < .005), the age trend for overall
Openness differed by gender. Among both boys and girls, mean
levels were consistent from early to middle childhood and then
showed a roughly U-shaped age trend. However, the precise
shape of this trend differed between boys and girls. Among
boys, Openness declined by 5 T-points from middle childhood
into late adolescence and then inclined by 2 T-points from late
adolescence into early adulthood. Among girls, Openness
declined by 4 T-points from middle to late childhood, inclined
by 2 T-points from early to late adolescence, and then declined
416
by 2 T-points from late adolescence into early adulthood. As a
result of these trends, girls tended to be somewhat more open
than boys during adolescence, with gender differences of up to 3
T-points.
Nuance-level analyses indicated that three of the six Openness items showed distinctive age trends. One distinctive item
was “40. Is curious and exploring; likes to learn and experience
new things,” which declined across childhood and early adolescence by approximately 10 T-points and was then consistent
into early adulthood. The second item was “70. Daydreams;
often gets lost in thought or a fantasy world.” This item inclined
across childhood and adolescence by approximately 6 T-points;
from late adolescence into early adulthood, it showed a flat age
trend for boys but declined by 2 T-points for girls. The final item
was “68. Is a very smart person (even though formal tests and
evaluations might not show this).” This item very gradually
inclined with age among boys, by a total of 2 T-points, and
remained flat among girls. These results support the disruption
hypothesis for overall Openness. However, they also indicate
that Openness’s age trend differs somewhat for boys versus
girls, and that two important nuance traits—curiosity and
absorption in fantasy—show distinctive and virtually opposite
trends.
Extraversion. Regression coefficients for Extraversion are presented in Table 2, and mean levels are shown in Figure 1d. Overall Extraversion showed a quadratic age trend (b 5 .0448,
p < .005). Mean levels declined from early childhood through
early adolescence by approximately 13 T-points and then
remained consistent into early adulthood. This pattern was very
similar for boys and girls, and there were no more than trivial
gender differences at any age. Nuance-level analyses indicated
that all nine Extraversion items showed age trends similar to
overall Extraversion. These results support the hypothesis that
youths’ expressive behavior declines steadily across childhood
and early adolescence.
Activity. Regression coefficients for Activity are presented in
Table 2, and mean levels are shown in Figure 1e. Overall Activity showed a quadratic age trend (b 5 .0192, p < .005). Mean
levels declined from early childhood into late adolescence by
approximately 10 T-points and then remained consistent into
early adulthood. Boys tended to be somewhat more active than
girls, with gender differences of up to 3 T-points.
Nuance-level analyses indicated that two of the five Activity
items showed distinctive age trends. One such item was “37.
Likes to compete; is always testing and comparing themself to
other people,” which inclined from early to middle childhood by
approximately 3 T-points and then declined from late childhood
into early adulthood by approximately 3 T-points. The other
item was “51. Is well-coordinated. (For example, does well in
sports).” Among girls, this item steadily declined, by a total of 4
T-points. Among boys, it declined from early to middle childhood by 4 T-points and then inclined from late childhood into
early adulthood by 2 T-points. These results support the hypoth-
Soto
eses that physical energy level declines substantially across
childhood and adolescence, and that boys tend to be more active
than girls from a young age. They also indicate that competitive
drive shows a distinctive developmental trend.
Neuroticism. Regression coefficients for Neuroticism are presented in Table 2, and mean levels are shown in Figure 1f. Overall Neuroticism showed a cubic age trend (b 5 .0115, p < .005).
For both boys and girls, mean levels inclined by approximately
9 T-points from early to middle childhood. However, as indicated by the significant Gender 3 Age (b 5 .1317, p < .005)
and Gender 3 Age2 (b 5 .0270, p < .005) interaction terms,
Neuroticism showed quite different age trends for boys versus
girls from late childhood into early adulthood. Among boys,
it declined by 4 T-points from late childhood into early adulthood. Among girls, it declined by 2 T-points across late childhood, but then inclined by 3 T-points from early adolescence
into early adulthood. As a result of these trends, a gender difference in Neuroticism emerged during adolescence, with girls
scoring approximately 5 T-points higher than boys by early
adulthood.
Nuance-level analyses indicated that 12 of the 15 Neuroticism items showed age trends similar to overall Neuroticism.
One exception was “77. Feels unworthy; has a low opinion of
themself.” This item inclined monotonically across childhood
and adolescence, with a total incline of approximately 13 Tpoints. The second exception was “33. Cries easily,” which was
consistent across early and middle childhood and then declined
from late childhood into early adulthood by 4 T-points for girls
and 10 T-points for boys. The final exception was “64R. Is calm
and relaxed; easy-going.” This item indicated consistent levels
of calmness across early and middle childhood and then genderspecific age trends consistent with overall Neuroticism from late
childhood into early adulthood. These results support the
hypothesis that Neuroticism shows gender-specific age trends
during adolescence, leading to greater negative emotionality
among girls than boys. They further indicate that, among both
boys and girls, mean levels of overall Neuroticism incline during
childhood, self-doubt inclines throughout childhood and adolescence, and crying declines during adolescence.
DISCUSSION
Measuring the Little Six Youth Personality
Dimensions
The present research pursued three main goals. The first was to
develop a method for measuring the Little Six youth personality
dimensions—Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,
Neuroticism, Openness to Experience, and Activity—using the
item pool of the California Child Q-set. We used a joint rationalempirical approach to construct the CCQ–Little Six scales and
found that they reliably assess each Little Six dimension, including assessment of Activity as largely independent from the Big
Five.
Mean-Level Development of the Little Six
Conceptually, the Little Six represent a union of the most
prominent trait dimensions from the personality and temperament literatures, and they can therefore help to integrate these
two research traditions within a common organizing framework
(De Pauw & Mervielde, 2010; Shiner & DeYoung, 2013; Soto
& John, 2014). Empirically, several studies support the Little
Six as a structural model of youths’ traits (De Pauw et al., 2009;
John et al., 1994; Soto & John, 2014; Van Lieshout & Haselager, 1994). To our knowledge, however, the CCQ–Little Six is
the first measure that independently assesses each Little Six
dimension. This measure should therefore prove useful for
future studies examining youths’ psychological characteristics:
studies that analyze the existing archive of CCQ data, as well as
studies that collect new data. The CCQ–Little Six can also
inform the development of future Little Six measures. For example, a new measure could aim to include a more even balance of
item content (e.g., more Openness and Activity content) and better differentiate between some Little Six dimensions (e.g.,
Agreeableness and Conscientiousness).
Mean-Level Age and Gender Differences in the
Little Six
Our second major goal was to examine mean-level age and gender differences in the Little Six across childhood, adolescence,
and early adulthood. We found a complex pattern of developmental trends. Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness
all showed curvilinear, U-shaped patterns, with declines from
childhood into early adolescence followed by inclines from late
adolescence into early adulthood. In contrast, Extraversion and
Activity steadily declined with age. We also found gender differences in some traits. Boys were consistently more active than
girls, whereas girls tended to be more conscientious and agreeable than boys. Neuroticism showed gender-specific age trends:
Mean levels inclined across childhood for both boys and girls,
and then a gender difference emerged during adolescence as
Neuroticism further inclined among girls but declined among
boys.
Many of these findings are consistent with results from previous cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (e.g., De Bolle et al.,
2015; Denissen et al., 2013; Eaton, 1994; Eaton & Enns, 1986;
Lamb et al., 2002; Prinzie & Deković, 2008; Slobodskaya &
Akhmetova, 2010; Soto et al., 2011; Van den Akker et al.,
2014). There is thus growing evidence that many personality
traits show substantial mean-level age and gender differences
across childhood and adolescence. Interestingly, this evidence
indicates that Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness
show patterns consistent with the disruption hypothesis: Rather
than steadily increasing throughout the life span, some aspects
of psychosocial maturity temporarily decline during the transition from childhood to adolescence (cf. Denissen et al., 2013;
Soto et al., 2011; Van den Akker et al., 2014). There is also
growing evidence that boys and girls show somewhat different
patterns of personality development (cf. De Bolle et al., 2015;
417
Eaton & Enns, 1986; Slobodskaya & Akhmetova, 2010; Soto
et al., 2011; Van den Akker et al., 2014), with early appearing
and persistent gender differences in some traits (especially
Activity and Conscientiousness) and gender-specific age trends
for others (especially Neuroticism). All of these findings highlight the importance of additional research examining youth personality development.
Mean-Level Development of Personality
Nuances
Our final goal was to examine the development of Little Six
nuances, as captured by individual CCQ items. Many nuance
traits showed distinctive trends. For example, perspective taking, self-doubt, and absorption in fantasy steadily inclined with
age, whereas attention seeking, bossiness, crying, and curiosity
steadily declined, all of which contrast with the trends shown by
overall Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Openness. We also
found some distinctive nuance-level trends specific to early and
middle childhood. Across these years, competitiveness and selfstandards inclined, despite declines in overall Activity and
Conscientiousness.
These findings agree with results from previous studies in
suggesting that—throughout the life span—the more specific
traits within a broad personality dimension sometimes show distinctive developmental trends (e.g., Roberts et al., 2006; Soto &
John, 2012; Soto et al., 2011; Terracciano et al., 2005; Van den
Akker et al., 2014). Moreover, the present results illustrate that
such trends can be identified through nuance-level analyses of
individual items (see also Lucas & Donnellan, 2009; McCrae, in
press). Nuance-level analyses offer a highly sensitive, bottomup approach: They can identify clusters of individual items with
similar developmental trends, without imposing a static facetlevel structure. This approach may be particularly appropriate in
childhood and adolescence, when the lower-order structure of
youths’ personality traits is less clear and may shift with age
(Caspi et al., 2005; Soto & John, 2014).
In fact, nuance-level trends may help explain some differences in youth versus adult personality structure. For example,
within the Activity dimension, we found marked declines in
physical activity level—but not competitive drive—with age.
These trends may reflect the process by which Activity recedes
from a major personality dimension in childhood to a lowerorder trait in adulthood. In childhood, Activity is primarily
defined by physical energy and motor activity (Soto & John,
2014). These physical nuances are prominent features of many
children’s personalities, as indicated by their high mean levels
(Figure 1e; see also Eaton, 1994). By adolescence, the meaning
of Activity expands to include psychological nuances such as
motivation and competitive drive (Soto & John, 2014), whereas
mean levels of physical activity decline. Physical activity level
declines still further into young adulthood, such that overall
Activity no longer appears prominent enough to qualify as a
major personality dimension (Eaton, 1994). Instead, Activity’s
418
physical nuances become integrated into Big Five Extraversion,
and its motivational nuances into Conscientiousness (Costa &
McCrae, 2010; Shiner & DeYoung, 2013). These patterns highlight the importance of assessing Activity in studies of youth
personality, either as a major, independent dimension (especially during childhood and early adolescence) or as a facetlevel trait (especially during late adolescence and young
adulthood).
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE
DIRECTIONS
The present research had a number of important strengths,
including its large sample, broad age range, independent
assessment of each Little Six dimension, and examination of
nuance traits. However, it also had some important limitations.
For example, all of the present participants volunteered to
complete an online survey; therefore, the present sample may
not fully represent the general population. Moreover, the present data were all parent reports. An important advantage of
parent reports, compared with alternatives such as teacher
reports and self-reports, is that they allowed us to assess personality traits across a broad age range spanning from early
childhood (when most children have not started school and
cannot provide valid self-reports) into early adulthood. However, parent reports are imperfect indicators of personality that
sometimes disagree with other sources of information (e.g.,
De Fruyt et al., 2006; Van den Akker et al., 2014). In particular, parent reports tend to be positively biased, and they may
be less accurate for adolescents and young adults who no longer live at home (including, presumably, many target children
in the present 18–20-year-old age group). They may also be
shaped by parental expectations regarding group differences in
youths’ behavior; for example, parents may expect girls to be
less physically active than boys and thus rate girls lower on
Activity. Another limitation of our measurement approach was
that using individual items to assess nuance traits restricts the
reliability of these measurements (McCrae, in press). A final
noteworthy limitation was the present research’s crosssectional design. Cross-sectional age differences may reflect
not only true developmental changes, but also cohort effects
(i.e., the effects of different children being born and raised in
different historical contexts) and differential selection effects
(i.e., the effects of parents choosing to participate for different
reasons at different ages).
Many of these concerns are partially alleviated by convergence between the present findings and previous studies that
have used other recruitment strategies (e.g., Slobodskaya &
Akhmetova, 2010), other measurement approaches (e.g., Soto
et al., 2011), and longitudinal or meta-analytic designs (e.g.,
Denissen et al., 2013; Van den Akker et al., 2014). However,
additional replication is still needed. Further evidence regarding
personality development prior to age 10, as well as the development of nuance traits, will be particularly valuable.
Soto
Beyond these limitations, the present research raises important questions. For example, to what extent do the developmental trends observed in studies of parent reports, teacher reports,
and youths’ self-reports reflect age and gender differences in
youths’ behavior, and to what extent do they reflect differences
in the standards that raters use to make personality judgments
(see also Denissen et al., 2013)? To some degree, parents in the
present sample appear to be holding children of different ages to
different standards. For example, as described above, the item
“68. Is a very smart person (even though formal tests and evaluations might not show this)” shows only a small mean-level
incline with age. This clearly does not indicate that a typical 3year-old is almost as smart as a typical 18-year-old; a high
school senior obviously possesses many more cognitive skills
than a preschooler. Instead, parents are likely comparing 3-yearolds and 18-year-olds to different standards of cognitive ability.
Despite such shifts in rating standards, there are at least three
important reasons to believe that most observed age and gender
differences in personality ratings reflect differences in actual
behavior. First, in the present study, the CCQ–Little Six scales
showed a reasonable degree of measurement invariance across
age and gender, suggesting that they function similarly
(although not identically) in different groups. Second, if parents,
teachers, and youths accurately shift their rating standards with
age, then these shifts will tend to diminish rather than magnify
age differences in personality ratings. Therefore, age differences
in personality ratings are more likely to represent conservative
estimates than overestimates of true age differences in personality. Third, many observed age and gender differences in personality ratings converge with other sources of information. For
example, U-shaped age trends in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness converge with peaks in risky, oppositional, and antisocial behavior during adolescence (Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, 2012; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013;
Moffitt, 1993; Steinberg et al., 2008), and gender differences in
Conscientiousness parallel differences in academic achievement
(Fortin, Oreopoulos, & Phipps, 2013). Age and gender differences in Activity converge with studies using objective instruments, such as actometers and pedometers (Eaton, 1994; Eaton
& Enns, 1986). Gender-specific trends for Neuroticism during
adolescence mirror the emergence of gender differences in clinical anxiety and depression (Lewinsohn, Gotlib, Lewinsohn,
Seeley, & Allen, 1998; Nolen-Hoeksema & Girgus, 1994).
However, additional research is needed to further disentangle
gender and age differences in youths’ behavior from differences
in rating standards. Such research could benefit from obtaining
measures of personality and behavior based on direct observation, as well as traditional self-reports and informant reports
(e.g., Borkenau, Reimann, Angleitner, & Spinath, 2001).
A final, crucial question concerns causality. What developmental mechanisms underlie age and gender differences in
youths’ personality traits? Previous research investigating the
origins of personality differences (e.g., Borkenau et al., 2001;
Jang, Livesley, & Vernon, 1996), as well as predictors of adult
personality change (e.g., Bleidorn et al., 2013; McCrae et al.,
Mean-Level Development of the Little Six
2000; Specht et al., 2014), indicate that personality development
is influenced by both biological and social factors. Biological
influences on youth personality development likely include
genetics, as well as changes in hormones, brain structure, and
brain chemistry (Bleidorn, Kandler, Riemann, Angleitner, &
Spinath, 2009; DeYoung & Gray, 2009). Social causes likely
include family, peer, and academic experiences (Bleidorn, 2012;
Shiner & Caspi, 2003; Van den Akker et al., 2014). However,
much additional research—especially longitudinal studies
designed to test whether earlier biological and social factors predict subsequent personality change—is needed to identify the
specific mechanisms underlying youth personality development.
As consensus builds regarding patterns of age and gender differences in youths’ personality traits, the shift from describing such
differences to explaining them will become increasingly
important.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
Preparation of this article was supported by a faculty research
grant from Colby College.
Notes
1. In the remainder of this article, we use the term personality
broadly to include traits drawn from both the child temperament and
adult personality literatures.
2. Throughout this article, we use the terms incline (i.e., positive age
trend) and decline (i.e., negative age trend) to describe crosssectional age differences. We reserve the terms increase and
decrease for describing longitudinal changes.
3. The present sample was also analyzed by Soto and John (2014),
who examined personality structure but not mean-level age or gender
differences in personality traits.
4. An alternative approach would be to eliminate items that show
differential functioning. However, this approach would result in narrower definitions of the Little Six; it would also provide less total
information than examining each conceptually relevant item
individually.
References
Bleidorn, W. (2012). Hitting the road to adulthood: Short-term personality development during a major life transition. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1594–1608.
Bleidorn, W., Kandler, C., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath,
F. M. (2009). Patterns and sources of adult personality development: Growth curve analyses of the NEO PI-R scales in a longitu-
419
dinal twin study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
97, 142–155.
Bleidorn, W., Klimstra, T. A., Denissen, J. A., Rentfrow, P. J.,
Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. (2013). Personality maturation around
the world: A cross-cultural examination of social-investment
theory. Psychological Science, 24, 2530–2540.
Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1980). The California Child Q-Set. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Block, J., & Block, J. H. (2006). Nursery school personality and
political orientation two decades later. Journal of Research in
Personality,40, 734–749.
Borkenau, P., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. M. (2001).
Genetic and environmental influences on observed personality:
Evidence from the German Observational Study of Adult Twins.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 655–668.
Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). A temperament theory of personality development (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Caspi, A., Block, J., Block, J. H., Klopp, B., Lynam, D., Moffitt, T.
E., et al. (1992). A “common-language” version of the California
Child Q-Set for personality assessment. Psychological Assessment, 4, 512–523.
Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56,
453–484.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Youth risk
behavior surveillance, United States, 2011. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Clark, L., & Watson, D. (2008). Temperament: An organizing paradigm for trait psychology. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A.
Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research
(3rd ed., pp. 265–286). New York: Guilford Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collins, W. (2003). More than myth: The developmental significance
of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 13, 1–24.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2010). NEO Inventories professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
De Bolle, M., De Fruyt, P., McCrae, R. R., L€ockenhoff, C. E., Costa,
P. T., Aguilar-Vafaie, M. E., et al. (2015). The emergence of sex
differences in personality traits in early adolescence: A crosssectional, cross-cultural study. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 108, 171–185.
De Fruyt, F., Bartels, M., van Leeuwen, K. G., De Clercq, B.,
Decuyper, M., & Mervielde, I. (2006). Five types of personality
continuity in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 91, 538–552.
Denissen, J. A., Van Aken, M. G., Penke, L., & Wood, D. (2013).
Self-regulation underlies temperament and personality: An integrative developmental framework. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 255–260.
De Pauw, S. W., & Mervielde, I. (2010). Temperament, personality
and developmental psychopathology: A review based on the conceptual dimensions underlying childhood traits. Child Psychiatry
and Human Development, 41, 313–329.
420
De Pauw, S. W., Mervielde, I., & Van Leeuwen, K. G. (2009). How
are traits related to problem behavior in preschoolers? Similarities
and contrasts between temperament and personality. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 309–325.
DeYoung, C. G., & Gray, J. R. (2009). Personality neuroscience:
Explaining individual differences in affect, behaviour and cognition. In P. J. Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 323–346). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.
American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Eaton, W. O. (1994). Temperament, development, and the five-factor
model: Lessons from activity level. In C. F. Halverson, G. A.
Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of
temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp.
173–187). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eaton, W. O., & Enns, L. R. (1986). Sex differences in human motor
activity level. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 19–28.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2013). Uniform crime report for
the United States, 2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Fortin, N. M., Oreopoulos, P., & Phipps, S. (2013). Leaving boys
behind: Gender disparities in high academic achievement (NBER
Working Paper 19331). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”:
The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.
Goldsmith, H., Buss, A. H., Plomin, R., Rothbart, M. K., Thomas,
A., Chess, S., et al. (1987). What is temperament? Four
approaches. Child Development, 58, 505–529.
Halverson, C. F., Havill, V. L., Deal, J., Baker, S. R., Victor, J. B.,
Pavlopoulous, V., et al. (2003). Personality structure as derived
from parental ratings of free descriptions of children: The Inventory of Child Individual Differences. Journal of Personality, 71,
995–1026.
Harter, S. (2006). The self. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series
Eds.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:
Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed.,
pp. 505–570). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hill, J. P., & Lynch, M. E. (1983). The intensification of genderrelated role expectations during early adolescence. In J. BrooksGunn & A. C. Peterson (Eds.), Girls at puberty (pp. 201–228).
New York: Springer.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). Growth of logical thinking from
childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.
Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., & Vernon, P. A. (1996). The
genetic basis of personality at different ages: A crosssectional twin study. Personality and Individual Differences, 21,
299–301.
John, O. P., Caspi, A., Robins, R. W., Moffitt, T. E., & StouthamerLoeber, M. (1994). The “little five”: Exploring the nomological
network of the five-factor model of personality in adolescent
boys. Child Development, 65, 160–178.
Soto
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to
the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement,
and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A.
Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research
(3rd ed., pp. 114–158). New York: Guilford Press.
Keating, D. P. (2004). Cognitive and brain development. In
R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 45–84). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lamb, M. E., Chuang, S. S., Wessels, H., Broberg, A. G., & Hwang,
C. (2002). Emergence and construct validation of the Big Five
factors in early childhood: A longitudinal analysis of their ontogeny in Sweden. Child Development, 73, 1517–1524.
Lewinsohn, P. M., Gotlib, I. H., Lewinsohn, M., Seeley, J. R., &
Allen, N. B. (1998). Gender differences in anxiety disorders and
anxiety symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 109–117.
Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. (2009). Age differences in personality: Evidence from a nationally representative Australian sample.
Developmental Psychology, 45, 1353–1363.
Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the
structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
88, 139–157.
Marshall, W. A., & Tanner, J. M. (1986). Puberty. In F. Falkner & J.
M. Tanner (Eds.), Human growth (Vol. 11, pp. 171–209). New
York: Plenum Press.
McCrae, R. R. (in press). A more nuanced view of reliability: Specificity in the trait hierarchy. Personality and Social Psychology
Review.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor
model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A.,
Hrebickova, M., & Avia, M. D. (2000). Nature over nurture:
Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., Parker, W. D., Mills,
C. J., De Fruyt, F., et al. (2002). Personality trait development
from age 12 to age 18: Longitudinal, cross-sectional and crosscultural analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
83, 1456–1468.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and
factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.
Mervielde, I., & De Fruyt, F. (2002). Assessing children’s traits with
the Hierarchical Personality Inventory for Children. In B. De
Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five assessment (pp. 129–142).
Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent
antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological
Review, 100, 674–701.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th
ed.). Los Angeles: Muthen & Muthen.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Girgus, J. S. (1994). The emergence of gender differences in depression during adolescence. Psychological
Bulletin, 115, 424–443.
Mean-Level Development of the Little Six
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five factors and facets
and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81, 524–539.
Prinzie, P., & Deković, M. (2008). Continuity and change of childhood personality characteristics through the lens of teachers. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 82–88.
Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory
factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for
exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114,
552–566.
Rice, K. G., & Mulkeen, P. (1995). Relationships with parents and
peers: A longitudinal study of adolescent intimacy. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 10, 338–357.
Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126,
3–25.
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns
of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course:
A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin,
132, 1–25.
Roberts, B. W., & Wood, D. (2006). Personality development in the
context of the neo-socioanalytic model of personality. In D. K.
Mroczek & T. D. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 11–39). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Temperament, development, and personality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 207–212.
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hersey, K. L., & Fisher, P. (2001).
Investigations of temperament at three to seven years: The Children’s Behavior Questionnaire. Child Development, 72, 1394–
1408.
Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why
can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five
personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 94, 168–182.
Shiner, R., & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality differences in childhood
and adolescence: Measurement, development, and consequences.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 2–32.
Shiner, R. L., & DeYoung, C. (2013). The structure of temperament
and personality traits: A developmental perspective. In P. D.
Zelazo (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental psychology: Vol. 2. Self and other (pp. 113–141). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Slobodskaya, H. R., & Akhmetova, O. A. (2010). Personality development and problem behavior in Russian children and adolescents.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 441–451.
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2012). Development of Big Five domains
and facets in adulthood: Mean-level age trends and broadly versus narrowly acting mechanisms. Journal of Personality, 80,
881–914.
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2014). Traits in transition: The structure of
parent-reported personality traits from early childhood to early
adulthood. Journal of Personality, 82, 182–199.
Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The
developmental psychometrics of Big Five self-reports: Acquies-
421
cence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages
10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 718–
737.
Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big-Five domains
and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 330–348.
Specht, J., Bleidorn, W., Denissen, J. J., Hennecke, M., Hutteman,
R., Kandler, C., et al. (2014). What drives adult personality
development? A comparison of theoretical perspectives and
empirical evidence. European Journal of Personality, 28, 216–
230.
Steinberg, L., Albert, D., Cauffman, E., Banich, M., Graham, S., &
Woolard, J. (2008). Age differences in sensation seeking and
impulsivity as indexed by behavior and self-report: Evidence for a
dual systems model. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1764–1778.
Tackett, J. L., Slobodskaya, H. R., Mar, R. A., Deal, J., Halverson, C.
F., Baker, S. R., et al. (2012). The hierarchical structure of childhood personality in five countries: Continuity from early childhood to early adolescence. Journal of Personality, 80, 847–879.
Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., Brant, L. J., & Costa, P. T. (2005).
Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of the NEO-PI-R scale in
the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging. Psychology and
Aging, 20, 493–506.
Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development.
New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Van den Akker, A. L., Deković, M., Asscher, J., & Prinzie, P.
(2014). Mean-level personality development across childhood
and adolescence: A temporary defiance of the maturity principle
and bidirectional associations with parenting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 736–750.
Van Lieshout, C. F. M., & Haselager, G. J. T. (1994). The Big Five
personality factors in Q-sort descriptions of children and adolescents. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin
(Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality
from infancy to adulthood (pp. 293–318). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
APPENDIX
Extraversion (9 items)
18. Lets their peers know it when they are upset or angry.
Doesn’t hold back their own feelings when they feel upset
or angry.
19. Is open and straightforward.
58. Openly shows the way they feel, whether it’s good
or bad.
84. Is a talkative person; talks a lot.
1R. Shows their thoughts and feelings in the way they
look and act, but does not talk much about what they think
and how they feel.
8R. Likes to keep their thoughts and feelings to
themself.
35R. Holds things in. Has a hard time expressing themself; is a little bit uptight.
422
Soto
86R. Likes to be by themself; enjoys doing things alone.
98R. Is shy; has a hard time getting to know people.
Agreeableness (22 items)
2. Is considerate and thoughtful of other people.
3. Is a warm person and responds with kindness to
other people.
4. Gets along well with other people.
6. Is helpful and cooperates with other people.
9. Makes good and close friendships with other people.
14. Is eager to please.
15. Shows concern about what’s right and what’s wrong.
29. Is protective of others. Protects people who are
close to them.
31. Is able to see how others feel; can put themself in
another person’s place.
32. Gives, lends, and shares things.
62. Is obedient and does what they are told.
11R. Tries to blame other people for things they have
done themself.
13R. Tries to see what and how much they can get away
with. Usually pushes limits and tries to stretch the rules.
20R. Tries to take advantage of other people.
22R. Tries to get others to do things by playing up to
them. Acts charming in order to get their way.
55R. Worries about not getting their share of material
things, food, or love. Seems afraid they won’t get enough.
56R. Is jealous and envious; wants what other people
have.
80R. Teases and picks on their peers.
85R. Is aggressive. (For example, picks fights or starts
arguments.)
90R. Is stubborn.
93R. Is bossy and likes to dominate other people.
95R. Lets little problems get to them and is easily
upset. It doesn’t take much to get them irritated or mad.
Conscientiousness (10 items)
25. Thinks things out and reasons like a very mature person.
36. Finds ways to make things happen and get things
done.
41. Is determined in what they do; does not give up easily.
47. Has high standards for themself. Needs to do very
well in the things they do.
59. Is neat and orderly in the way they dress and act.
66. Pays attention well and can concentrate on things.
67. Plans things ahead; thinks before they do something. “Looks before they leap.”
76. Can be trusted; is reliable and dependable.
89. Is able to do many things well; is skillful.
99. Thinks about their actions and behavior; uses their
head before doing or saying something.
Neuroticism (15 items)
23. Is nervous and fearful.
24. Worries about things for a long time.
33. Cries easily.
39. Freezes up when things are stressful, or else keeps
doing the same thing over and over.
46. Tends to go to pieces under stress; gets rattled
when things are tough.
48. Needs to have people say that they are doing well
or ok. Is not very sure of themself.
50. Tends to get sick when things go wrong or when
there is a lot of stress. (For example, gets headaches, stomach aches, throws up.)
60. Gets nervous if they are not sure what’s going to
happen or when it’s not clear what they are supposed to do.
72. Often feels guilty; is quick to blame themself, even
though they might not talk about it.
77. Feels unworthy; has a low opinion of themself.
78. Has their feelings hurt easily if they are made fun
of or criticized.
43R. Can bounce back and recover after a stressful or
bad experience.
64R. Is calm and relaxed; easy-going.
82R. Speaks up and sticks up for themself; goes after
what they want.
88R. Is self-confident and sure of themself; makes up
their own mind.
Openness to Experience (6 items)
40. Is curious and exploring; likes to learn and experience
new things.
68. Is a very smart person (even though formal tests
and evaluations might not show this).
70. Daydreams; often gets lost in thought or a fantasy
world.
74. Usually gets wrapped up in what they are doing.
96. Is creative in the way they look at things; the way
they think, work, or play is very creative.
97. Likes to dream up fantasies; has a good imagination.
Activity (5 items)
26. Is physically active. Enjoys playing sports, running, and
exercise.
28. Is energetic and full of life.
37. Likes to compete; is always testing and comparing
themself to other people.
51. Is well-coordinated. (For example, does well in
sports.)
63. Is fast-paced; moves and reacts to things quickly.
Note. R indicates a reverse-keyed item.